Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results • Hacker News Board

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#281

Post by gist » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 3:41 PM UTC

crispyambulance wrote: post #268

gist wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are charging people like $500 a pop to "remove damaging information from Google results." And ALL THEY DO is fill out that form for free. Someone tried to hawk this service to my husband after he came under attack. 'ALL THEY DO' is what anyone does in a similar way. You are paying for what they know that you don't know how to do. There is nothing wrong or deceptive about making money in this way. (use of 'all they…

> There is nothing wrong or deceptive about making money in this way. Absolutely incorrect. It's more complicated and insidious than your reductive argument suggests. These reputation "management" companies are also the ones who scrape public records on a massive scale and DELIBERATELY place this data really high up in search rankings. So, casual searches for someone's name often end up returning vague negative resul…

You've made good points but they are not related to what I am discussing which is someone charging $500 (if that is the price) to get information off google that google will do (apparently per OP) if you knew the right form.

Anyone knowing the 'right form and place to find it' can charge a price and offer a service. This is quite different than what you are describing that reputation management companies do.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#282

Post by salawat » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

franga2000 wrote: post #249

propogandist wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

laws requiring a third party to sign off on things you can do to your own property sounds like a violation of freedoms

What "freedoms"? That term is used everywhere and rarely defined well. The freedom to "do what you want with your own property"? That doesn't exist - anywhere! You need to follow the rules and the only way to make sure someone is doing things properly (or at least know how to) is either to have them be certified in what they do or have someone who is certified check their work. If you screw up your electrical wiring,…

>That doesn't exist - anywhere! You need to follow the rules and the only way to make sure someone is doing things properly (or at least know how to) is either to have them be certified in what they do or have someone who is certified check their work.

Dude, trust me. Yes there are building and electrical codes. Many are written in blood. The perception that there is no implicit freedom to be found anywhere is unique to our internet worked world where you can pull the tail of the invisible cat and have it yowl at the inspector in short order.

What you are probably struggling with, is the concept of the Social Contract's primacy. There are those that believe what is allowed starts with a yes/no from the biggest baddest enforcer of their idea of the Social Contract. I call these folks Hobbesian. Then there are those who see the Social Contract itself as something subject to the independent acceptance in whole or in part by independent, free-thinking agents. I call these folks Locke-ian. They are famous for the intellectual fireworks that get set off if you lock them in a room together to settle their differences.

The reality is, the truth is something more akin to: let's implement paperwork and objective inspections so people have a safe recourse, but leave the door open for people to do what they want with things they own, and only argue about the more philosophical notes when there is a clear and present breach of decorum by one party or another.

This arrangement tends to keep both parties reasonably happy.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#283

Post by gogopuppygogo » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #277

pessimizer wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should have a house inspected before you buy it. It's not necessary to monitor and restrict all owners to protect possible future buyers who don't want to inspect a house before buying it.

No inspector in the world is going to open up all of the electrical fixtures and look at the wiring inside.

Mike Holmes would.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#284

Post by franga2000 » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

mox1 wrote: post #272

franga2000 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "freedoms"? That term is used everywhere and rarely defined well. The freedom to "do what you want with your own property"? That doesn't exist - anywhere! You need to follow the rules and the only way to make sure someone is doing things properly (or at least know how to) is either to have them be certified in what they do or have someone who is certified check their work. If you screw up your electrical wiring,…

So do you have any data to back this up? Do home-owner repaired house catch on fire more often than houses repaired by licensed contractors? My insurance company has never told me I can't repair my own house. Easy to say things like this, but once you get out into the real world you notice a lot of America doesn't want to pay $150/hour to change a light switch...and has the knowledge to DIY it.

Back what up? I never made any claims about whether DIY is more dangerous or not. But the fact is that DIY or not, certain regulations must be followed when doing repairs - this is written into law in most countries. You're not allowed, for example, to hook up an oven to a 30A breaker using speaker wire. Because we can't trust that everyone will know not to do that, certifications have been designed to ensure correct knowledge and skill and those certifications are often mandated by law. You have two options - either get certified, so you can be trusted to carry out the work yourself, or get someone who is certified to at least look it over. Seems entirely reasonable.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#285

Post by slg » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #233

slg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely ignored the last paragraph of my comment where I addressed this type of concern.

Because it’s detached from reality and shows a misunderstanding of how deeply embedded secure crypto is into everything. Nearly every X86 processor now supports AES intrinsics that are used in the building blocks of far beyond encrypting messages (e.g. golang’s hashing). Additionally, a from scratch implementation of AES in JavaScript or any other modern programming language is a junior level task. Unless you propose…

>Money laundering restrictions work because everything goes through a fairly centralized banking system. Crypto has no such equivalent.

You are treating encryption as an independent end goal by itself when it is only a tool that is used during communication and storage. Communication and to a lesser extent storage are highly centralized. How much of the average person's encrypted communication occurs in a channel that is not touched by some US company?

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#286

Post by beerandt » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

Rasta1s wrote: post #257

beerandt wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're focusing on the "public record", when you need to be focusing on what constitutes blackmail, extortion, bribery, etc. And while expungement is a complicated thing, it generally means that legally, it never happened. That has tons and tons of different legal interpretations even within one jurisdiction, depending on the who/what/why. For instance you might be legally protected to claim you were never arrested w…

So much inaccuracies, where to begin? No, libel/slander/defamation has nothing to do with distributing factual information, including expunged records. Judges can't order you not to publish factual information. If they do, it's against the constitution and your First Amendment rights. While a person can claim the event never happened, it doesn't change the fact that it did, and doesn't take your constitutional rights…

Expungements are different everywhere, but consider the next step of trial and conviction.

If a criminal is convicted of a felony, papers can publish that. If he's then exonerated, continuing to call him a convicted felon in future publications is a legal falsehood.

Saying he was tried, convicted, then exonerated (and possibly expunged), and is not a felon would likely be ok.

Which is why I said it highly depends on how it's said.

Because truth/falsehood determination is going to be decided as a matter of fact by the jury during trial, so intent, deception, and reputation will likely sway jurors. And the standard for a civil trial is the much easier "preponderance of evidence/causality" (as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" of criminal trials).

Your constitutional right is to be able to talk about it, but that doesn't mean there won't be a cost or penalty or damages for doing so.

As opposed to what many have recently claimed, the constitutional right of free speech does protect even false, hateful, or even threatening speech. That doesn't mean said speech will be free of consequences. Look at the history of reporters being jailed for refusing to name a source. Many times it's their right to do that, and many times they go to jail anyway.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#287

Post by franga2000 » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #282

franga2000 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "freedoms"? That term is used everywhere and rarely defined well. The freedom to "do what you want with your own property"? That doesn't exist - anywhere! You need to follow the rules and the only way to make sure someone is doing things properly (or at least know how to) is either to have them be certified in what they do or have someone who is certified check their work. If you screw up your electrical wiring,…

>That doesn't exist - anywhere! You need to follow the rules and the only way to make sure someone is doing things properly (or at least know how to) is either to have them be certified in what they do or have someone who is certified check their work. Dude, trust me. Yes there are building and electrical codes. Many are written in blood. The perception that there is no implicit freedom to be found anywhere is unique…

I honestly have no clue what you're on about. There's nothing philosophical about this discussion - it's entirely practical. We don't want to get hurt by other people's mistakes, therefore we don't let people do things where that is a possibility without training or supervision by someone who is trained. You do not have the freedom to do XYZ when society has decided that if you attempt to do XYZ, measures should be taken to stop and/or punish you. The fact that you have the ability to do XYZ and that the authorities we have delegated to ensure you don't do XYZ are doing their job well is entirely besides the point.

People don't want to get hit by a car, so we've collectively agreed to require that all drivers pass an exam that proves they know how to drive safely enough to bring the risk of them running someone over with a car to an acceptable level. The general freedom to drive a car does not exist - we've collectively limited it to only those individuals, who pass our standard. Similarly, everyone does not have the right to build their own airplanes and fly people around in them, because those people could get seriously hurt - we have limited that "freedom" to only people who have proven that they know enough about how to build and/or fly planes to, again, decrease that risk down to an acceptable level.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#288

Post by NegativeLatency » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #269

NegativeLatency wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prior owner of my house was very free with his exposed wire nuts and other sketchy wiring practices then. I’ll take some level of safety that my house won’t burn down or electrocute me over absolute freedom.

You should have a house inspected before you buy it. It's not necessary to monitor and restrict all owners to protect possible future buyers who don't want to inspect a house before buying it.

It was inspected and specifically called out by the inspector in the visible areas, but there’s no way to know the full scope of the issues unless the inspector were to rip open walls and stuff.

Either way we got a good deal on the house and I’ve been learning a lot about how to fix it the right way.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#289

Post by NegativeLatency » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:07 PM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #277

pessimizer wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should have a house inspected before you buy it. It's not necessary to monitor and restrict all owners to protect possible future buyers who don't want to inspect a house before buying it.

No inspector in the world is going to open up all of the electrical fixtures and look at the wiring inside.

There were some splices from the 60’s that were completely inaccessible in a sealed attic that weren’t in junction boxes.

There were also some hot wires just dangling out of a box in the basement, and a couple fried plugs, so I and I assume the inspector knew that there were bound to be more fun surprises.

It’s not like the inspector is going to say “well we better open up this wall just in case”

Ended up rewiring one of the bathrooms after what started out as “change a couple of switches and add a GFCI”

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#290

Post by avianlyric » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #148

avianlyric wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your first three paragraphs are all focusing on structural flaws with my suggestion and not technical limitations of encryption itself. The debate has already moved from this is impossible to this is impractical. I think the flaws are so large, and fixing them so impractical (especially anything involving direct human involvement), that the problem is essentially impossible. In theory traffic laws should prevent 10…

>I think the flaws are so large, and fixing them so impractical (especially anything involving direct human involvement), that the problem is essentially impossible. Then let's as an industry try to think through ways to fix these impractical problems. My original goal was not for you and me to design the perfect system in a quick HN conversation. I was instead pointing out that the tech community too often treats th…

> People want to engage in vices. I'm not convinced that people have nearly as strong of a desire for complete privacy as evident by all the behavior we have seen over the last few decades in responses to how governments and corporations invade privacy.

The people law enforcement wants to access is supposedly those traffic CP, terrorise or similar crimes. Those individuals 100% want privacy and will get it.

As for the remaining 99%, there’s no evidence that strong encryption prevents law enforcement from doing their job effectively. Want to see examples of law enforcement circumventing perfect encryption, then look to British police. They solved this problem quite elegantly, you wait for someone to unlock their phone, then you grab it out of their hands.